Concerned that the Celtics seem determined to stay on the treadmill

[philr13]

I am not in the least bit concerned with the Celtics being "determined to stay on the treadmill".

I think the current ownership has made it clear that they are championship driven. Their past actions have illustrated this. They traded young players and assets to build the 2008 team. They then traded Garnett and Pierce to obtain young players and assets again. They also made it clear that they were willing to trade young players (Tatum?) for Anthony Davis if they could.

We've all seen teams that are happy with playoff appearances and hotdog revenue. That's not what's happening here.

[Fafnir]

I think the team needs to internally prioritize the development of the Jays and figuring out how good they are. But using the cap space on the best player they could land is also something they had to do. The C's basically had this year and next year to be flexible, and next years FA class is just so bad that signing Kemba to a 3 + 1 deal makes a ton of sense.

I definitely want to see the Jays get put in prime positions to grow, and I'd even want Williams to get 15 MPG at the minimum. Williams though I get why that might not happen, especially with his work ethic issues, you don't want to force feed him minutes he's not earning in practice/offseason.

[gpap]

What exactly could they have done? Trading for Kawhi would have been a mistake, knowing that he is departing for LA. One title is not enough for me. Even the Big 3 should have won at least one more title. We would have been left with nothing. It's better to consistently be competitive and in a position to take advantage of injuries or meltdowns (see: Toronto 2019). What would you say about Toronto's gamble if Durant remained healthy and GS won?

So does this mean you're not happy with the job Ainge has done? Because that's all we've won since he took over since 2003. At this rate, I only expect us to win at the most 1 title in the next few years.

[gpap]

Concerned? Yes, I am.

Considering all the departures from last season, I'm pretty happy with how things have turned out.

But the franchise needs to prioritize size more than anything else.

The Lakers picked up 3 bigs this offseason in Davs, Cousins and McGee.

For whatever reason, Ainge and Stevens don't value bigs and I don't know why.

I liked the Kanter pick-up, but we need more bigs and I'm not overly optimistic about Vincent Poirier. Never heard of the guy.

Right now, there's too much of an emphasis on wing players

[Fafnir]

Right now, there's too much of an emphasis on wing players

We've watched most "true" big men played off the court the last few playoffs. The ones who were able to stay on the court largely were able to shoot.

Of the premium players the C's had a shot at only Vuc was a big man, and he got completely taken out in the playoffs by Gasol. I would have been happy with Vuc, but I prefer Kemba and so did the league given Vuc got a sub-max deal.

Just look at the contracts given out, big men as a group have lost value in the league because of the nature of the game changing. Big two way wings are now the most valuable class of player.

[Lary1997]

Hello !!

[IDreamCeltics]

I don't think the OP's concerns are valid because of how much worse this team is going to be without Horford, Morris and Baynes.  Even 40 wins seems extremely generous given the current roster.  We effectively hopped off the treadmill and accepted that we're chasing another high lottery pick this year.  It stinks, but it's also the right thing to do considering Hayward's cap implications.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Kemba Walker signing will play out to be a great move long-term, but this will definitely a "transition" year.
     

[NKY fan]

Ok now we have OKC as a peer in what we are doing.
You can argue that they are now positioned to “compete” and rebuild at the same time.
We will see what direction will Presti  choose.
Theoretically they can do what we did stay the course and have the picks ready for another trade.
You can argue that their roster is not worse than ours.
Westbrook = Kemba
Shai = jaylen
Gallinari = Tatum
Noel = smart
Adams = Hayward + Kanter
They also have 5 + 2 swap picks unprotected well into  the future.
Are the thunder the new Celtics

[arctic 3.0]

I don't think the OP's concerns are valid because of how much worse this team is going to be without Horford, Morris and Baynes.  Even 40 wins seems extremely generous given the current roster.  We effectively hopped off the treadmill and accepted that we're chasing another high lottery pick this year.  It stinks, but it's also the right thing to do considering Hayward's cap implications.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Kemba Walker signing will play out to be a great move long-term, but this will definitely a "transition" year.
   

Can’t  tell if you are serious
40 wins generous?

I think you are seriously underestimating Kemba and the J’s. That trio will get you more than 40 wins.
If Hayward returns to form we will have one of the most talented starting lineups in the east.

I see this team easily eclipsing last year’s win total.

[obnoxiousmime]

Ok now we have OKC as a peer in what we are doing.
You can argue that they are now positioned to “compete” and rebuild at the same time.
We will see what direction will Presti  choose.
Theoretically they can do what we did stay the course and have the picks ready for another trade.
You can argue that their roster is not worse than ours.
Westbrook = Kemba
Shai = jaylen
Gallinari = Tatum
Noel = smart
Adams = Hayward + Kanter
They also have 5 + 2 swap picks unprotected well into  the future.
Are the thunder the new Celtics

No, they're going to trade Westbrook. They have luxury tax concerns and Shai as a PG replacement anyway. Gallinari's contract will expire in one year so they will shop him as well. If they could get rid of Adams he'd also probably be gone, but perhaps they don't need to if they are rebuilding and it won't get them anything in return.

Presti is definitely psyched about this situation, the Clippers totally bailed him out.

[keevsnick]

In a lot of ways the Celtics are trying to do the single hardest thing in the NBA, which is build on two separate timelines. Building on an older timeline involves acquiring vets via fre agency or trade, using draft picks to pick up supporting pieces, filling out the roster with the MLE, BAE, and minimums then maximizing your playing time decisions to win. Building for the future usually involves taking toxic assets to get draft picks, being bad to imprve your own draft picks, drafting high upside guys, clearing the roster to give them maximum playing time and supplementing with just a couple vets for culture reasons. The Celtics are, and have been trying to do a blend of both.

The problem with that is you lose a little from both approaches. Brown and Tatum haven't gotten the shots or playmaking responsibilities they might have had they been drafted to a worse team on account of the Celtics having veterans like Hayward and Irving. This may have effected their development, or it may have lowered their perceived value around the league. The Celtics have wasted draft picks on guys like Yabu since they had a full and deep roster including vets like Morris so they reach for draft and stash guys. On the same token after selecting their young guys they have been reluctant to go al in on the present with guys like Kawhi, Paul Geeorge ect.

And now, with Kyrie gone, they've elected to sign a guy who rally doesn't move the needle all that much in terms of a championship in Kemba Walker all so they can be a little better now maybe at the expense of less shots for Brown and or tatum. Does al this mean we are a treadmill team? I dont really know. But I do wonder if they would have just been better off staying on the tanking route a season or longer, letting their young guys developing, and gong form their rather than signing all these 20-30 ranked NBA players like hayward, Horford and Kemba.

you're really discounting the fact that Kemba chose Boston over 29 other teams because he wants to win. If we still tanked 1 or more years, would any free agents want to come in the future who "want to win?" the winning culture got us horford, Hayward, and Kemba to come. Tanking wouldn't have done that

Okay, but I could counter by saying that the level of free agent you are referencing doesn't really matter. Those guys have a total of two all NBA third Teams between the three of them, they arent winning you a title. And maxing them out makes it harder to get the true superstar who can. Then they take opportunities away from young guys which artificially suppresses their value. The strategy was get those guys and make the team look good so when we get the superstar he stays, my counter argument is getting those guys makes it harder to get the superstar in the first place.

[NKY fan]

Ok now we have OKC as a peer in what we are doing.
You can argue that they are now positioned to “compete” and rebuild at the same time.
We will see what direction will Presti  choose.
Theoretically they can do what we did stay the course and have the picks ready for another trade.
You can argue that their roster is not worse than ours.
Westbrook = Kemba
Shai = jaylen
Gallinari = Tatum
Noel = smart
Adams = Hayward + Kanter
They also have 5 + 2 swap picks unprotected well into  the future.
Are the thunder the new Celtics

No, they're going to trade Westbrook. They have luxury tax concerns and Shai as a PG replacement anyway. Gallinari's contract will expire in one year so they will shop him as well. If they could get rid of Adams he'd also probably be gone, but perhaps they don't need to if they are rebuilding and it won't get them anything in return.

Presti is definitely psyched about this situation, the Clippers totally bailed him out.

I bet it’s eating Danny inside watching Memphis making al these trades and thunder getting all these picks lol

[Rainmaker]

I trust Ainge more than some random poster on a forum.

Amen. TP

I don't know, sometimes the random poster is a wellspring of useless information.
Give them their just due!

[Rondo9]

In a lot of ways the Celtics are trying to do the single hardest thing in the NBA, which is build on two separate timelines. Building on an older timeline involves acquiring vets via fre agency or trade, using draft picks to pick up supporting pieces, filling out the roster with the MLE, BAE, and minimums then maximizing your playing time decisions to win. Building for the future usually involves taking toxic assets to get draft picks, being bad to imprve your own draft picks, drafting high upside guys, clearing the roster to give them maximum playing time and supplementing with just a couple vets for culture reasons. The Celtics are, and have been trying to do a blend of both.

The problem with that is you lose a little from both approaches. Brown and Tatum haven't gotten the shots or playmaking responsibilities they might have had they been drafted to a worse team on account of the Celtics having veterans like Hayward and Irving. This may have effected their development, or it may have lowered their perceived value around the league. The Celtics have wasted draft picks on guys like Yabu since they had a full and deep roster including vets like Morris so they reach for draft and stash guys. On the same token after selecting their young guys they have been reluctant to go al in on the present with guys like Kawhi, Paul Geeorge ect.

And now, with Kyrie gone, they've elected to sign a guy who rally doesn't move the needle all that much in terms of a championship in Kemba Walker all so they can be a little better now maybe at the expense of less shots for Brown and or tatum. Does al this mean we are a treadmill team? I dont really know. But I do wonder if they would have just been better off staying on the tanking route a season or longer, letting their young guys developing, and gong form their rather than signing all these 20-30 ranked NBA players like hayward, Horford and Kemba.

you're really discounting the fact that Kemba chose Boston over 29 other teams because he wants to win. If we still tanked 1 or more years, would any free agents want to come in the future who "want to win?" the winning culture got us horford, Hayward, and Kemba to come. Tanking wouldn't have done that

Okay, but I could counter by saying that the level of free agent you are referencing doesn't really matter. Those guys have a total of two all NBA third Teams between the three of them, they arent winning you a title. And maxing them out makes it harder to get the true superstar who can. Then they take opportunities away from young guys which artificially suppresses their value. The strategy was get those guys and make the team look good so when we get the superstar he stays, my counter argument is getting those guys makes it harder to get the superstar in the first place.

They’re All Stars no matter how much you want to downplay it shows that star players do want to play in Boston if they can get in a position to win.

[KGs Knee]

In a lot of ways the Celtics are trying to do the single hardest thing in the NBA, which is build on two separate timelines. Building on an older timeline involves acquiring vets via fre agency or trade, using draft picks to pick up supporting pieces, filling out the roster with the MLE, BAE, and minimums then maximizing your playing time decisions to win. Building for the future usually involves taking toxic assets to get draft picks, being bad to imprve your own draft picks, drafting high upside guys, clearing the roster to give them maximum playing time and supplementing with just a couple vets for culture reasons. The Celtics are, and have been trying to do a blend of both.

The problem with that is you lose a little from both approaches. Brown and Tatum haven't gotten the shots or playmaking responsibilities they might have had they been drafted to a worse team on account of the Celtics having veterans like Hayward and Irving. This may have effected their development, or it may have lowered their perceived value around the league. The Celtics have wasted draft picks on guys like Yabu since they had a full and deep roster including vets like Morris so they reach for draft and stash guys. On the same token after selecting their young guys they have been reluctant to go al in on the present with guys like Kawhi, Paul Geeorge ect.

And now, with Kyrie gone, they've elected to sign a guy who rally doesn't move the needle all that much in terms of a championship in Kemba Walker all so they can be a little better now maybe at the expense of less shots for Brown and or tatum. Does al this mean we are a treadmill team? I dont really know. But I do wonder if they would have just been better off staying on the tanking route a season or longer, letting their young guys developing, and gong form their rather than signing all these 20-30 ranked NBA players like hayward, Horford and Kemba.

you're really discounting the fact that Kemba chose Boston over 29 other teams because he wants to win. If we still tanked 1 or more years, would any free agents want to come in the future who "want to win?" the winning culture got us horford, Hayward, and Kemba to come. Tanking wouldn't have done that

Okay, but I could counter by saying that the level of free agent you are referencing doesn't really matter. Those guys have a total of two all NBA third Teams between the three of them, they arent winning you a title. And maxing them out makes it harder to get the true superstar who can. Then they take opportunities away from young guys which artificially suppresses their value. The strategy was get those guys and make the team look good so when we get the superstar he stays, my counter argument is getting those guys makes it harder to get the superstar in the first place.

They’re All Stars no matter how much you want to downplay it shows that star players do want to play in Boston if they can get in a position to win.

Not all stars are created equal.   Being able to land a guy like Horford, Hayward, or Walker is not the same as being able to land a guy like Kawhi, George, Davis, Durant, LeBron, ect.  They are not on the same level of stardom.